On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 15:09, Mark J. Reed wrote: > On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 07:56:11PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote: > > > Also, just wondering: > > > > > > $_[_][EMAIL PROTECTED] _=_0_-_ > > > > > > does that work the way I expect it to? > > > > Dunno, what do you expect it to do?. To my way of thinking there's > > going to be a syntax error at the third '_'. But I'm not entirely > > certain of that. > To me, the third '_' seems like it'd be an unambiguous case of the concatenation > operator. I still can't parse it, however; it looks like an attempt to > modify a non-lvalue: > > $_.[_()] _ @_._() _= _0_() - _()
Hmm... meant this to be silly, but this is now bringing up some important things. $_[_] This to me, means $_ . ['_'] But, only if {} goes away, as we still need the $x{foo} behavior, don't we? _0_ This was my mistake. It would have to be 0_0_, to be a number, which breaks my perfect string of underscores ;-) Everything else that you say is as I expected it to be taken. It's interesting how many people assumed it'd be a syntax error, though....